Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Niwas, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttar Pradesh and Sri Harindra Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2.

2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against judgment and order dated 29.04.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau in Case No. 1398 of 2014 - Mansha Devi Vs. Ravindra Maurya, under Section 127 Cr.P.C. (arising out of Case No. 115 of 1997, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist was directed to pay maintenance to the opposite party no. 1 @ Rs.2500/- per month from the date of order and @ Rs.1500/- per month, to opposite party no. 2 from the date of order. Revisionist was further directed to pay Rs.1000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 from the date of application till the date of order and Rs.2000/- per month from the date of order till the date of her marriage. Arrears of maintenance was directed to be paid in five equal installments, at the intervals of three months.

3. Brief facts as transpire from the record are that opposite party no. 1 Mansha Devi, wife of revisionist filed a Case No. 115 of 1997 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist for grant of maintenance. Which was decided vide order dated 29.08.1998, directing the revisionist to pay maintenance to the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, @ Rs.500/- and Rs.300/- per month, respectively. The revisionist was complying the above order. Meanwhile the opposite party no. 2 filed the above application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance, before Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau, which was decided vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2015 and the revisionist was directed to pay enhanced maintenancce to opposite party nos. 1 and 2 as stated above. Aggrieved therefrom, the revisionist filed this criminal revision on the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision.

4. On 27.05.2015, following order has been passed:-

"Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no. 3.

Issue notice to opposite party nos. 2 & 3 returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week.

Four weeks time is granted to opposite party nos. 2 & 3 as well as learned A.G.A. to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within three weeks thereafter.

List thereafter.

However, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionist during the pendency of the said revision in case the revisionist fulfills the following conditions:

(a) As far as the daughter is concerned as she has already attained majority, the effect and operation of the order dated 29.04.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau in Case No. 1398 of 2014, inasmuch as the daughter is concerned, shall remain stayed.

(b) As far as the wife is concerned, the amount of maintenance, which has been enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2500/-, from the date of order i.e. 29.07.2015, is modified to the extent that the revisionist instead of Rs. 2500/- shall pay and continue to pay maintenance amount @ Rs. 1500/- per month for the time being.

5. In case of default in making the payment as specified above, the order granting interim protection, shall stand automatically vacated."

6. The learned counsel for revisionist contended that revisionist was paying maintenance to opposite party nos. 1 and 2 in pursuance of earlier order dated 29.08.1998. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau vide order dated 29.04.2015 has wrongly and illegally enhanced the amount of maintenance payable to opposite party nos. 1 and 2, by five times, from the date of application without any cogent evidence regarding enhancement of income of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist also contended that the court below has committed error of law by passing the impugned order because in view of decree of divorce, passed against opposite party no. 1 and the fact of